Just, trusts or funds more specific to uk companies rather than the main two indexes. (FTSE 100 & 250)
So no more spanish fruits for most people I guess.
On a more serious note I am not sure what is this discussion about. The outcomes of Brexit are already modelled by impartial organisations and itās going to be bad overall.
3 Likes
The outcomes are modelled yes but the assumptions need unpicking. Most models assumed no FTAs with the existing nations the E.U. has for 2 years. All major ones, including Mexico as of yesterday, have been replaced taking some of the sting out of it.
Economic models are useful but can never be used as predictions.
Egypt replaced Spain as the number one producer of oranges this year. The world is more than the E.U. and people need to recognise this.
Youāre wrong. There is no outcome for a hard Brexit that Boris is pursuing even with a deal in the next ten years which benefits us economically. We are putting up barriers to trade to our biggest export market. From an economic perspective itās totally nonsensical. People have modelled us keeping all the existing FTAās and they barely move the dial. The problem is that we still donāt understand our trade strategy and what weāre looking to do.
Every trade deal involves trade offs which need to be well thought out and ultimately whilst a trade deal may benefit an economy in aggregate it may harm some part of the economy. Itās really not as simple as āletās get out there and do trade dealsā.
The whole the world is more than the EU comment is ridiculous. Who can we do a trade deal with that will really move the dial for us? China, India, Brazil, the US, Indonesia? All of these potential deals have major issues whether it be farming or national security, and itās very rare for a country to allow substantial competition in services - which is most of the U.K. economy.
5 Likes
Interesting that you ignored my previous response to you and jumped on this one but we shall put that aside.
Firstly, I did not say there would be no hit but that the hit is unlikely to be as bad as the models predict owing to the assumptions built into those models. If you look at what the economic models laid out for 2020 it is exemplary of the inherent issues with economics models (ie the outcome is only predictive if nothing else moves).
The trade strategy is pretty simple and the government has laid it out a number of times. Sign deals with all current EU partners (done). Then attempt to join CPTPP (likely). At the very least sign deals with Australia (EU is struggling over agriculture as usual) and India (EU talks collapsed over extralegal demands made by EU which rings a bell). Lithium (crucial for batteries) is found mainly in countries with which the EU does not have FTAs and so if the UK can move faster (and BritishVolt have argued) then it will be a good thing.
With the UK leaving the EU you now have a trade bloc which is modelled (again not certain same issues here) to be only 12% of world GDP in 10 years time (ex UK). The UK and Germany are predicted to be top 10 global economy by 2050 but no other EU countries are. Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Brazil and others are likely to become major players and suck up more and more of global demand. The pivot needs to be away from the ageing economies of Europe and into Africa and Asia. Australia and NZ were forced to do this when the UK joined the EEC and both have refitted.
Services do form parts of FTAs so I am unsure to what you are referring. The recent Japan deal held key sections about regulatory deals (see TransferWise who have benefitted) and data sharing. The Australia FTA is likely to include lots on banking, fintech rules and data sharing as well.
Isnāt the U.K. already in the top ten! In fact the U.K. is slipping down the rankings by 2050.
Yes the point was it will remain in the top 10. Naturally the UK will slip down the rankings as we are a small nation of 65 million in a world where consumers drive economic growth.
Yes I know which economies are going to be big in the future. Donāt you think the EU also wants to do trade deals with these countries? In trade deals the smaller the bloc is (in our case one country) the less leverage we have. There is no reason for the U.K. to get a better trade deal with larger economies compared to the EU unless we have some very specific comparative advantage that we want to ātradeā with another economy. And given we donāt understand what our overall trade strategy is I donāt know what that is - compare us to the USA, at least under Trump I know that the US wanted in the Trump years to on-shore high value manufacturing for instance.
Services are a very minimal part of most trade deals - the piece you mention with japan is absolutely tiny, and no analysis has been published by the government dating to what extent our japan deal is better than the existing deal japan has with the EU, likely because thereās hardly any difference, just some cosmetic changes to get it done quickly. And services have barely featured in the EU negotiations, putting lots of uncertainty on our financial sector who have collectively moved tens of billions of pounds of assets into the EU as we have not secured an equivalence regime so far.
Why has the government done so little on services with the EU? This has made a real impact on many Brits with accounts in the EU who are now having their accounts cancelled by banks as the banks donāt know what regulations they will be operating under for EU based British customers.
Previously India was demanding better visa access to the U.K. in order to do a trade deal - and that wouldnāt be easy to sell in the U.K. Overall India is quite a protectionist economy so thereās little chance of a wide ranging trade deal there - itās too difficult domestically for Modi.
2 Likes
Why has the EU not then? The EU is shrinking in size and has more leverage now then it will in the future yet is not acting with urgency. Trade deals are not about āleverageā if all an economy cares about is being open. Hence why Australia was able to secure a FTA with China whilst the EU has not.
The Japan services section is not tiny. The financial services regulation section alone constitutes a major win for UK fintechs. The EU is yet to grant equivalency correct but that was a known issue and most banks have worked around it. Assets can be moved easily between entities. I have been involved with that before and it is very simple and straightforward with little change in overall personnel levels and strategy. I think people envisage hoards of gold being moved but in reality all that changes is the internal legal entities to which contracts and assets relate.
British people in the EU can still access UK bank accounts. HSBC, TransferWise, Revolut and others all still over those services. A few banks (such as Coutts which the vast majority of people are not able to use even in the UK) are not willing to incur the cost of opening an EU branch. It does not stop anyone in the EU having access to a UK bank account. Some people may need to change banks though.
The UK cannot control equivalency being granted. The EU was passing laws making London less competitive (VAT on commodity trades for example). This will no longer be an issue and help London work with the rest of the world. EU firms are already saying to regulators they need to have access to London commodity markets but are being denied by EU regulators. London has already granted equivalence. EU companies being shut out of London along with EU citizens/companies losing access to insurance markets does not seem in the best interest of the EU but that is the EUās choice.
India was demanding better access to visa yes (student visas and then work permits afterwards in particular). I think this seems more likely now than before. Part of the issue with immigration was the UK could not stop people coming from within the EU so had to dampen immigration from without to prevent hundreds of thousands (a city the size of Southampton) arriving every year.
India is quite a protectionist economy but needs to open up. Doing so with a small economy like the UK is easier and more palatable than opening up to large trading blocs as the impact will be far less.
2 Likes
India is increasingly aligning with ASEAN, I think the ASEAN-India FTA is pretty comprehensive now.
2 Likes
Yes and no. India has an FTA with ASEAN but refused to take part in RCEP due to concerns about competition from China. ASEAN is increasingly aligning supply chains with China (extending out to Australia) and so India is missing out on lots of this.
The UK has opted not to implement the Free Movement Directive controls around controlling EU immigration that lots of other states use, so seems a bit strange to complain about having no control over it
2 Likes
Iām giving up on this thread as i know youāll come back all day trying to convince us how great Brexit is - when economically itās is definitely a net negative in next 5 years, thereās zero evidence to the contrary, even many brexiteers admit this and say itās more about sovereignty than just economics. Last thing to say, to say that itās easy to move banking assets between different countries is totally ridiculous. Regulation such as capital adequacy ratios means that moving billions from one country to another can have significant impacts on any international bank.
5 Likes
Breaking news: People arguing about Brexit fail to convince the other side they are right!
I jest 
12 Likes
The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
1 Like
The UK is the only country to negotiate a worse deal than the situation the country were in previously.
8 Likes
What about NAFTA?
Which deal?
I presume the reference is to the current FTA which will exist after the UK has left the Single Market and Customs Union.
3 Likes